Doctor Scratch wrote:That said, I'm curious: Do you feel that any of the apologists attempt to fill this same sort of role---i.e., really challenging people's testimonies? Frankly, I think that if Roberts were alive today, he would have been ex'ed by the BKP faction of GAs.
It's a totally different ballgame today. I trace this to the decline in openness and a strong focus on "orthodoxy" which began in the Joseph Fielding Smith era (1950s). The bravado and confidence subsided, and apologists became much more defensive. It's sort of like a soccer game where Team A is ploughing Team B's defence and about to score, but in the second half Team A is constantly under attack and can only defend against Team B scoring.
A Roberts-type figure would simply not be tolerated today. Can you imagine DCP coming here and playing "Devil's advocate"? And actually pointing out weaknesses in Mormon belief as if he was genuine? Roberts was both apologist and scholar, but I don't believe he put one above the other. He readily acknowledged where there were problems in Mormon belief. Today, the apologists write "problems". What "problems?"